Belfast rape trial - all 4 found not guilty Mod Note post one

JMNolan

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Mass protests about rape in Ireland today. We are akin to India now.

Hopefully this shines an international spotlight on the shameful way that women are treated in Ireland.

When you have mass protests about rape, you"ve got to start looking at yourselves.

Why aren't trolls like you banned? All you do is stir hatred.

lawred2

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Mass protests about rape in Ireland today. We are akin to India now.

Hopefully this shines an international spotlight on the shameful way that women are treated in Ireland.

When you have mass protests about rape, you"ve got to start looking at yourselves.

ah goodness grief

OldRio

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Mass protests about rape in Ireland today. We are akin to India now.

Hopefully this shines an international spotlight on the shameful way that women are treated in Ireland.

When you have mass protests about rape, you"ve got to start looking at yourselves.

Are you drunk?

professore

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

There was a decent enough analysis on Prime Time (I didn't get to see it live, so I recorded it).
They had a solicitor on who discussed all the tenets needed to prove a rape prosecution, and how alcohol, drugs, and other factors factor into a case.

There was some blips on the show however-they used the word 'innocent' instead of 'acquitted', the language the judge used. I felt that this rape case was so heated, they should have used the legalese-because we weren't there.

Then they mentioned the 'consent' classes-and we pretty much had a whole spiel about 'consent'...didn't mention the complete failure of those classes, and how many places abandoned em.

Focused heavily on the rugby fellas, barely mentioned the girl. It was very rushed, and tbh, should have been left for a day-this kind of case was too sensitive for that kind of rushed treatment.

The whole issue of consent is a complete red herring here. Either she was into it or it was rape.

sydthebeat

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Mass protests about rape in Ireland today. We are akin to India now.

Hopefully this shines an international spotlight on the shameful way that women are treated in Ireland.

When you have mass protests about rape, you"ve got to start looking at yourselves.

May as well have the protests IN India for all the good they can do

wrangler

I'm delighted for the lads, but they will pay a horrible price going forward, the implications are huge.
They're behaviour was despicable, but no worse than the girls behaviour.
I wish them all the best of luck

Appledreams15

JMNolan wrote: »

Why aren't trolls like you banned? All you do is stir hatred.

Im sorry. I think that im just commenting on what is in the news today?

Me and thousands of other people are a troll?

When thousands of people are protesting are you going to care then?

CIARAN_BOYLE

VinLieger wrote: »

The thing that really bugs me is the stuff along the lines of "of course they got off they are rugby players"

That specifically just shows the people making those comments have an issue with the lads and rugby/sports in general and don't really care about the girl or the facts of the case.

Which shows the witch hunt mentality.

After all the pps was refused by a bunch of local barristers who were asked to prosecute the case on the basis that there wasn't enough evidence to proceed. This is why a non local barrister was brought in to prosecute.

The other social media complaint I've seen a lot of is of course they got off they are rich. Interestingly only Jackson paid his whole defence. The rest requested legal aid.

Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding have not been convicted in a court of law. This means that the pps brought a case without the evidence to prove them guilty. Evidence matters, proof matters.

By their actions and their comments during the trial I consider them little ****s but that doesn't mean they are rapist little ****s.

lawred2

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Im sorry. I think that im just commenting on what is in the news today?

Me and thousands of other people are a troll?

When thousands of people are protesting are you going to care then?

What specifically are you protesting?

um7y1h83ge06nx

The furore building due to this verdict would have to raise the question in the future if someone accused of rape could be afforded a fair trial.

backspin.

professore wrote: »

They only proved they weren't guilty beyond reasonable doubt. They aren't innocent beyond reasonable doubt either.

They were never guilty, they were presumed innocent. They have not been found guilty by the courts therefore they are still presumed innocent.

Hector Savage

Apart from one post yesterday, I wanted to avoid this thread like the plague, I can imagine its nasty in here - so apologies if these points
have allready been raised.
When I 1st heard about this case I honestly thought they were guilty, however as it progressed it became clearer to me that they were innocent,
they might have been jack the lad arseholes, disrespectful etc ... but not rapists.

Im stunned at the social media reaction, so called respectful members of society basically still calling them rapists.
I'm glad the jury wasn't influenced by this.

And of course Louise O Neill - LOUISE O'NEILL: Ulster rape trial: Toxic masculinity culture must not win

She is talking about innocent men here ??? surely this can be considered slander ?
Anyway, can't wait for her hit piece on the Telford+Rotherham grooming gangs.. :rolleyes:

link here (sorry I dont have access to full text - maybe its better )
https://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/louise-oneill/ulster-rape-trial-toxic-masculinity-culture-must-not-win-468845.html

VinLieger

Oaklyn Early Fauna wrote: »

The furore building due to this verdict would have to raise the question in the future if someone accused of rape could be afforded a fair trial.

If the whole thing wasn't played out in the media and both defendant and accuser were kept anonymous I think its possible.

um7y1h83ge06nx

VinLieger wrote: »

If the whole thing wasn't played out in the media and both defendant and accuser were kept anonymous I think its possible.

Very true, it's turned into a bad reality TV show.

DavidLyons_

Appledreams15 wrote: »

JMNolan wrote: »

Why aren't trolls like you banned? All you do is stir hatred.

Im sorry. I think that im just commenting on what is in the news today?

Me and thousands of other people are a troll?

When thousands of people are protesting are you going to care then?

Why should anyone one care what a collective of people who cannot respect the very clear verdict of a court of law in a different jurisdiction do?

Witchhunts are never good and just because you're struggling to accept the decision of an impartial jury doesn't mean anyone should or will give a fcuking sh1te what you think or do.

Appledreams15

I saw this online:

"Regardless of the verdict in the Rugby Trial.

If a girl leaves your company bleeding, in tears & traumatised while you call each other 'top shaggers'

You're an absolute scumbag."

AudreyHepburn

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Mass protests about rape in Ireland today. We are akin to India now.

Hopefully this shines an international spotlight on the shameful way that women are treated in Ireland.

When you have mass protests about rape, you"ve got to start looking at yourselves.

You do realize these 4 lads are innocent don’t you? You do real Otha that just because a woman says a man raped her doesn’t mean he did?

You’d think we were living in the dark ages the way you’re going on.

Christy42

backspin. wrote: »

They were never guilty, they were presumed innocent. They have not been found guilty by the courts therefore they are still presumed innocent.

I think the point was that some here have been following the logic that they are assumed innocent therefore she is lying using their assumption of innocence to assume her guilt.

It is a weird one legally where the best way I can describe it is we have no idea what happened (from a legal sense) without a guilty verdict one way or another (which won't happen).

I personally have seen little on this on my own social media feeds (and I know plenty of feminists) but I have seen this attitude on here. Not saying others are lying, my feed is different to theirs but pointing out you there are issues on multiple sides assuming guilt here.

I have more sympathy for those giving out about the lads as I can comfortably say they are scumbags (not guilty scumbags but I can see why people would not trust them after their statements).

backspin.

DavidLyons_ wrote: »

Why should anyone one care what a collective of people who cannot respect the very clear verdict of a court of law in a different jurisdiction do?

Witchhunts are never good and just because you're struggling to accept the decision of an impartial jury doesn't mean anyone should or will give a fcuking sh1te what you think or do.

Those people may end up on a jury someday.

AudreyHepburn

Appledreams15 wrote: »

I saw this online:

"Regardless of the verdict in the Rugby Trial.

If a girl leaves your company bleeding, in tears & traumatised while you call each other 'top shaggers'

You're an absolute scumbag."

If they didn’t realize she felt the way she did they’re hardly scumbags.

And when or where was it said she was physically injured?

ChikiChiki

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Mass protests about rape in Ireland today. We are akin to India now.

Hopefully this shines an international spotlight on the shameful way that women are treated in Ireland.

Such absolute hyperbolic drivel.

Penn

Weepsie wrote: »

It does not mean her account is false, it just means there's not enough evidence to convict FFS.

I can't understand how people don't get this tbh. If someone came up to you, punched you in the face and in a trial it was determined that there's not enough evidence to convict them, that doesn't mean you weren't punched in the face or that you're lying to try and get the other guy convicted. It just means there wasn't enough evidence for the jury to find them guilty.

Are the guys in this case guilty? Not one of us here knows. Not even the jury knows. We don't know if the rape occurred. We don't know if she's lying. We don't know if they're lying. We don't know if they simply didn't see it as rape at the time and didn't know the girl wasn't consenting. We don't know what happened. But based on the evidence submitted at the trial, the evidence wasn't strong enough to say they were guilty.

It doesn't mean they're innocent. And even if they are, it doesn't mean the girl is lying about her perception of what happened that night or her belief that she was raped.

People calling for heads to roll on either side need to take a step back. Personally, I believe her. But the guys were found not guilty and should be treated as such and be allowed to move on with their lives, and I hope the girl is able to come to peace with what happened and the verdict and can move on.

DavidLyons_

backspin. wrote: »

Those people may end up on a jury someday.

Frightening.

Appledreams15

lawred2 wrote: »

What specifically are you protesting?

The protest is set up to show solidarity and support for the girl.
I am also protesting because I think the rep. of Ireland treats rape victims the same as N. Ireland.
I am protesting because I was raped, and I felt that I had no avenue to report it, the legal system here lets down my human rights.
I am protesting because I have listened to many friends and family members talk about their experience with sexual assault, and I want to make the news, shine an international spotlight on Ireland, so people can see what is going on here. So that less women suffer going forward.
The first step to change is awareness.
I am protesting because the girl in this case was interrogated for 8 days on the stand while the men were for 0.5 to 1 day each. I want court practices to be more fair and just.
I want to bring Leo Varadkar's attention to this issue, and a protest is a good way to do that.

Defunkd

Weepsie wrote: »

It does not mean her account is false, it just means there's not enough evidence to convict FFS.

It also means there wasn't enough evidence to show that a crime had been committed in the first place.

C__MC

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

If they didn’t realize she felt the way she did they’re hardly scumbags.

And when or where was it said she was physically injured?

Bruising was later discovered and a small tear in which 3 doctors agreed it could have been a penis/finger/something else. The woman left but came back to get her phone, utterly bizzare.

VinLieger

backspin. wrote: »

Those people may end up on a jury someday.

And likely cause a mistrial by trying to hide their quite blatant bias in an effort to gain some kind of misguided "justice" for their "side"

SortingYouOut

Everyone just hopping on the bandwagon with the protest.

A sea of nose piercings, dyed hair and repeal the 8th t-shirts.

ChikiChiki

Appledreams15 wrote: »

The protest is set up to show solidarity and support for the girl.
I am also protesting because I think the rep. of Ireland treats rape victims the same as N. Ireland.
I am protesting because I was raped, and I felt that I had no avenue to report it, the legal system here lets down my human rights.
I am protesting because I have listened to many friends and family members talk about their experience with sexual assault, and I want to make the news, shine an international spotlight on Ireland, so people can see what is going on here. So that less women suffer going forward.
The first step to change is awareness.
I am protesting because the girl in this case was interrogated for 8 days on the stand while the men were for 0.5 to 1 day each. I want court practices to be more fair and just.
I want to bring Leo Varadkar's attention to this issue, and a protest is a good way to do that.

Thats fair enough but the comparison with India was a massive leap.

Defunkd

SortingYouOut wrote: »

Everyone just hopping on the bandwagon with the protest.

A sea of nose piercings, dyed hair and repeal the 8th t-shirts.

The smell of unwashed fanny will be got from the M50.